A chronicle of Issues, Studies, News and other items of interest regarding Mormonism (2006-2013)

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

McKay vs. publication of 'Mormon Doctrine'

Article Last Updated: 5/07/2005 01:25 AM=20 =20McKay vs. publication of 'Mormon Doctrine'=20=20By Gregory Prince and Wm. Robert WrightSalt Lake Tribune =20=20Here is an excerpt from David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism:=20 =20 A similar [controversy] occurred when Joseph Fielding Smith'sson-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, then a member of the First Council ofthe Seventy quietly wrote and published an encyclopedic book with thepresumptuous title of Mormon Doctrine. [David O.] McKay's first step was to obtain a copy of the book andstudy it. One of his secretaries noted, "He went through the wholething. He had paper clips [on the pages where he had a question], andthere were hundreds of them there." Then he summoned two seniorapostles, Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. "I asked them if theywould together go over Elder Bruce R. McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrineand make a list of the corrections that should be made preparatory tohis sending out an addendum to all members of the church who havepurchased his book." . . . Peterson and Romney took ten months to critique the book and maketheir report to the First Presidency. Romney submitted a lengthyletter on January 7, 1960, detailing what he felt were the mostegregious errors in the book and noting: "Its nature and scope and theauthoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose thequestion as to the propriety of the author's attempting such a projectwithout assignment and supervision from him whose right andresponsibility it is to speak for the church on 'Mormon Doctrine.' "On the same day, Petersen gave McKay an oral report in which herecommended 1,067 corrections that "affected most of the 776 pages ofthe book." Their reports placed McKay on the horns of a dilemma: Howcould he regain control of doctrinal exposition without destroyingMcConkie's credibility and career? . . . . . . The following day, McKay and his counselors made theirdecision. The book "must not be republished, as it is full of errorsand misstatements. . . . We do not want him to publish anotheredition. We decided, also, to have no more books published by GeneralAuthorities without their first having the consent of the FirstPresidency." . . . McKay's message seems to have been unambiguous.Nonetheless, McConkie audaciously approached McKay six years later andpushed for publication of the book in a revised form, albeit with thesame title and general tone. At this point McKay, age ninety-two andin failing health, did not take the matter up with his counselors orthe Quorum of the Twelve. Rather, he said that "should the book bere-published at this time," McConkie would be responsible for it and"that it will not be a church publication." Three days after meeting with McKay, Mc=C2Conkie wrote in a memo toClare Middlemiss, Mc=C2Kay's secretary, "President McKay indicated thatthe book should be republished at this time." Mc=C2Conkie, who practicedlaw prior to becoming a General Authority, was well versed in thelegal meaning of words; and so one is hard pressed to conclude that hemisunderstood Mc=C2Kay's cautionary statement, "should the book bere-published," as a mandate to republish. Instead, he moved with the same boldness of eight years earlier,and published a second edition of Mormon Doctrine. The book became oneof the all-time best sellers in Mormondom, achieving thenear-canonical status that McKay had fought unsuccessfully to avoid,and setting a tone of doctrinal fundamentalism, antithetical toMcKay's personal philosophy, that remains a legacy of the church tothis day.